This morning's headline, "U.S. Missiles Strike Deep Inside Pakistan for the First Time," got me thinking about this horrible business of strike first / ask later and the increasing acceptance of striking outside war zones. Last week it was a wedding party that we blew up -- I think we've done about six of those now; and the crime these people committed? They are alleged militants.
Now, ponder for moment, how does one commit the crime (which it must be since it is met with sudden and unannounced death) of being an "alleged militant?" Well, you can't do it alone. In fact, you aren't really involved (though I suppose you could perhaps help the crime to come about);it is someone else who makes you an "alleged militant."
Now, as we begin strikes deep into Pakistan, with whom we have no war, and who does not want us striking there, it becomes increasingly clear that our federal government does not care about humanity, the rule of law, or the detrimental impact of its actions on foreign relations. In short, it is a loose canon, killing on a whim and excusing the natural consequences of its actions as collateral damage.
For discussion:
- When will they start using missile strikes here in the US to keep the dissidents at bay?
- Are we really moving in that direction?
- Are these “blind” strikes in other countries any better than strikes here at home?
- How can we resist this tyranny?
